> > Your example doesn't counter my suggestion at all, which is to use the data > only and not a special rowid. So you put 2 identical rows in a table. > Since rows in a table are unordered, there isn't even an ordinal position > to distinguish the 2 occurrences of that same row. Since they are > identical, they are redundant, and so they are equivalent to just 1 such > row. So updating both copies is perfectly fine. Though better yet is to > not store a second copy in the first place. > LOL English isn't my first language but I think you are joking ...
If I want to make a table with a list of people (name and age) I can have two or more row with the same name and age and they aren't redundant and the implicit rowid is different. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
